Council orders more work to stop at Woolley farm site - but chicken sheds can stay
Council officials have ordered more work to stop on land at the centre of a bitter row between a farm business and local residents near Bath.
A concerted campaign is under way to reverse development and landscape changes in the hamlet of Woolley, with council planners accused to being too soft on landowner Golden Valley Paddocks.
Villagers - backed by former residents such as singer Peter Gabriel and broadcaster Jonathan Dimbleby - say the growth of chicken sheds, a mobile home and drainage work at the firm's Woolley Farm are scarring a picturesque landscape.
Bath and North East Somerset Council has firmly rejected the claim that it is failing to protect the Woolley Valley, which is in the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and which enjoys the extra protection of a ruling which takes away some normal building rights.
Today the council - which issued a stop notice to halt work on the land a month ago - took action over excavations at the northern end of the site.
The firm has been ordered to stop the excavation of soil and to reinstate the land to its previous condition.
The council said further action would follow over the mobile home and drainage work - but said 10 chicken shed could remain.
In a statement, the council said: "Bath and North East Somerset Council has taken this matter very seriously. We took the unusual step of serving a temporary stop notice on 23rd April 2010 and have also refused planning permission five times. We must operate within the terms of planning law and associated guidelines and be fair to all parties.
"Today, the council served a stop notice and enforcement notice in respect of the excavations at the northern end of the site.
"The stop notice covers the excavation of soil and surface materials from the land including the digging of pits and trenches and the alteration of the levels of the land. The enforcement notice requires the owners to stop the excavation works and to reinstate the land to its former condition. Further action will follow in relation to the mobile home and access/drainage.
"In respect of the chicken units, these are considered ‘chattels’ and therefore not development.
"The stop notice and enforcement notice are available for inspection by the public at Trimbridge House, Bath during normal office hours."
Golden Valley Paddocks says it wants to work with the council, and had co-operated with the previous notice.
It says it simply wants to farm the land and that work needs to be done to improve the farm's condition.
It also argues that much of the work it has done does not need planning permission.
The valley is however protected by an Article 4 Direction made in 1992 which means what are called permitted development rights are removed - and that landowners need planning consent for work that would not elsewhere need to be approved.
16 Comments
View all
by Dave, Larkhall
Tuesday, May 25 2010, 3:18PM
“You forgot estate agents Jonty!”
by Jonty, Combe Down
Tuesday, May 25 2010, 2:30PM
“Planners probably like teachers, nurses, MPs, police get a real slating in the press. Generally if you liaise with them throughout the pre-planning phase most things can be ironed out. Golden Valley Paddocks do not appear to have done this. Had they been open and honest about their intentions I am sure the outcome would have been different. Ignoring conflict leads to an escalation. Chickens/Alpacas/Property development/profit versus good neigbourliness and social responsibility.”
by Dave, Larkhall
Monday, May 24 2010, 10:24PM
“Kirsten: In all my years on this planet I don't think I have encountered a council, both elected members and officers that treat their residents with such pompous disdain.
Off topic I know, but I have just been going through the B&NES publication "A Review of Secondary Schools in Bath". You may be aware that the Sword of Damocles is hanging over the head of one of three schools and has been for at least three years.
Pages 16 and 17 of the document lays out the time table of events leading to the decision. Four public consultation meetings ending tomorrow night with Friday being the last day for comments. On Wednesday 21st July the cabinet meets to make their decision on which school to close.
This is the statement in the document for their meeting on the 21st July:
"Cabinet decision on WHETHER to publish proposals"
How bl00dy dare they consider keeping their decision from us for another six months? What about the uncertainty of parents and teachers? I'm just lost for expletives for this bunch of incompetent.............”
by Kirsten, Bath
Monday, May 24 2010, 6:12PM
“In view of the fact that, despite over 60 objections, a planning officer has nodded though the planning application for the station under delegated powers, you may well feel that some planning officers need lessons in what local democracy is about. There is no doubt that, given the objections and given the doubts that I know the council itself has about this scheme, it is an absolute disgrace that this did not go to committee. Why didn't the Abbey ward councillors demand that it did? If this had been Ms KT Elliott with a plan with that number of objections, you can be quite sure my local councillors would have done - and rightly so. Why so silent, Cllrs Webber and Gazzard? Is it because the applicants were FGW, Network Rail, Multi development and Aviva? Does that make a difference? I think the people of Bath have a right to know.”
by Happy days, MSN
Monday, May 24 2010, 5:46PM
“Long may the cull at Trym house be soon.
I know from experience how three planning officers can have three different views.
So what have we done we have sold up because the costs were escalating because of the planners.”